United States v. Carter
Decision Date | 28 October 2015 |
Docket Number | Case No. CR415–131 |
Citation | 141 F.Supp.3d 1381 |
Parties | United States of America v. Leon Carter. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia |
Marcela C. Mateo, Brian T. Rafferty, Edward J. Tarver, James D. Durham, U.S. Attorney's Office, Savannah, GA, for United States of America.
GEORGE R. SMITH
Indicted on gun charges, defendant Leon Carter moves to suppress statements he made while being transported by two law enforcement agents. Doc. 27. He insists that despite his custodial status and the "highly coercive setting," id. at 3, the agents:
overstated the evidence against the Defendant in order to gain his cooperation such as saying they may have DNA on the guns, telling him they "... know for a fact that you had guns" and that there was audio and video of evidence of his having guns. Secondly, implied promises were made to the Defendant during the interrogation. Specifically, Agent Crawford discusses the federal point system and acceptance of responsibility points and tells the Defendant that if he admits to what he's done he may be eligible for point reductions. Agent Crawford also told the Defendant that "... points equals time" thereby indicating to the Defendant that by cooperating that he would receive less time. Lastly, during the interrogation the Defendant indicated that he did not wish to continue by making such statements as "... I can't think right now ... don't make me look like a fool and ... I don't want to be a snitch and have my head blown off ..." and agents continued to question him. Agents violated the Defendant's constitutional rights, specifically, his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by conducting the interview in this manner. Therefore, any statements made by the Defendant during the interrogation must be suppressed.
Id. at 2–3. Carter contends both that his statements were involuntary and that "[t]he alleged giving of Miranda warnings in [his later] interview ... would not break the causal chain so that the statement(s) would be admissible, even if the statement(s) had been made voluntarily under the Fifth Amendment." Id.
Under this Court's Local Rule 12.1, S.D. Ga. Loc. Cr. 12.1 (emphasis added). Carter cites no record evidence that supports any of the factual assertions of his motion. And instead of tendering a Rule 12.1 affidavit from Carter, his counsel (who evidently obtained the above-excerpted, direct quotes from his client) tendered his own affidavit:
Suffice it to say that hearsay-based conclusions from counsel, rather than direct-knowledge factual attestations from the defendant or some other percipient witness, are not what the case law and Rule 12.1 demand.1 Cf. Rosin v. United States, 786 F.3d 873, 878 (11th Cir.2015)
(. ) Within 11 days of the date this Order is served, counsel shall re-brief and properly support Carter's motion—or withdraw it.2
1 See Am. Rock Salt Co., LLC v. Norfolk So uthern Corp ., 180 F.Supp.2d 420, 423 (W.D.N.Y.2001)
( ); Foster v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 98 F.Supp.2d 1261, 1265 (D.Kan.2000) (, )cited in Musselman v. Nitchman, 2005 WL 1657077 at * 5 (W.D.Wash.2005) ( ); see also Rivers v. United States, 777 F.3d 1306, 1315–16 (11th Cir.2015) (, )cited in Marshall v. United States, 2015 WL 3936033 at * 3 (S.D. Ga. June 26, 2015).
2 Defendant is reminded that hearing affidavits are duly scrutinized. Compare United States v. Lincecum, 220 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial